Pleaase respond to each post
In response to your peers, share any preconceived notions you may have about their topic. Lastly, consider how further exploration of the viewpoints around their topic would potentially change the lens through which they currently view the event.
#1
JD.
When considering the following statement: “In preparing for the Cherokee removal, state and federal officials were motivated solely by a desire to seize the natives’ land.”
The above statement does not fully explain the events preceding the removal of the Cherokees. The federal government wanted to seize the land from the Indians but that is not the whole story because others wanted them out not just from the federal and state officials. I would revise the above statement like this:
It was the state and federal officials and also the people in Georgia who wanted to see the Cherokee Indians removed from the land between 1798 and 1838. Cotton became the most important crop, which led to the desire for the Indians land in the southeast, because of this a hostile attitude towards the Cherokee Indians than ever. Georgians began falsely accusing the Indians with claims that they were violent towards white people and demanded that the government take swift action. Government officials sent armories and built forts for white people to protect themselves even though there was no real threat.
In my revision, I added more important information which will allow the reader to understand the event that happened. Without more information, the reader would have a hard time understanding, what occurred, and that could lead to a false understanding. There was a background story to why the Cherokee Indians were removed from their land, I wanted to ensure I included the false accusations that were made against them and why their land was valuable.
The other viewpoint I would like to further explore on my topic is “The Trail of Tears: I would like to go further into why President Jackson thought it was okay to ignore the Supreme Court order making explaining and ruling that states cannot interfere with the Cherokee Indians tribal sovereignty.
#2
Kona.
The original statement “In preparing for the Cherokee removal, state and federal officials were motivated solely by desire to seize the natives’ land.” I don’t believe presents the full picture. I have revised it to read: In preparing for the Cherokee removal, state and federal officials were motivated by the irrational racist notion that the Native Americans were “uncivilized dependents incapable of managing their own affairs”, and the potential economic windfall that gold and cotton would provide. These two factors ignited their desire to seize the native’s land.
As early as the 16th century the European settlers bore disdain for Native Americans. Even the Declaration of Independence refers to them as “merciless Indian savages”. This opinion of them was woven into the norms of the early American culture and validated the rationale to simply remove them from their lands as if they were pests that needed extermination.
The gold rush and soon to be King Cotton would amplify the urgency to seize the land. A small faction of the Cherokee National Council called the Treaty Party, held secret meetings with federal officials and ignorantly negotiated the unauthorized Treaty of New Echota which would relocate the Cherokee to the Indian Territory for $5 million and equivalent landmass that they were giving up.
For my topic The Equal Rights Amendment I would like to further explore and understand the opposing side of the ERA. Until I started my research I never realized how much opposition there was with good reasons. Phyllis Schlafly was one person that had a lot of influence on the stopping of the ERA. She created a large movement against the ERA called “Stop ERA”. I have been doing a lot of research about the opposing side and am starting to understand why it really took so long for the ERA to become ratified.
